Faculties/Departments
* Commerce & Management
* Engineering & Technology
* Social Sciences
* Education
* Humanities
* Law
* Physical Sciences
* Life SciencesEducational Streams
The university offers regular as well as correspondence courses in several domains. Along with customary pattern of education, the university survives with a fresh academic exuberance. Now it embarks upon a fresh voyage, the purpose of which is to disseminate profound thinking, teaching, research, investigation and exploration of the unexplored areas of knowledge by the scholars and teachers engaged to help the society to attain the height of glory. In order to achieve the splendid objectives, the University is offering job-oriented professional courses (one year PG Diploma in: Clinical Microbiology & Pathology, Medical Laboratory Technology, Radiology & X-Ray Therapy, Food Processing & Preservation, DNA Finger Printing and Forensic Science, Environmental Education & Awareness).

For reaching the unprivileged students, the University has offered job-oriented courses through Distance Education mode to meet the challenging and growing requirements of the people who can not afford regular studies. Distance learning and the Centre for Paramedical and Applied Sciences under the self-financed Institute of Professional and Scientific Studies and Research (IPSSR) have been established to promote excellence in the Distance Education, Paramedical Science and applied courses. University Centers of Distance Learning (UCDL) and Paramedical & Applied Sciences (UCPAS) are devoting their immense efforts to launch the relevant courses and maintain the quality, access and equity for excellence in teaching-learning process.

Introduction
Chaudhary Devi Lal University was instituted by the Government of Haryana in 2003 by an Act of the Legislative Assembly. The University has been named in the honour of the former Deputy Prime Minister of India Late Chaudhary Devi Lal, who is popularly known as 'Jan Nayak'. The University is situated at Sirsa (Haryana), the adjoining district of Punjab and Rajasthan. You need to travel 256 kms from Delhi and 285 kms from the state capital Chandigarh to reach the University campus at main Barnala road. 21 career-oriented and specialized courses are being conducted successfully by the University under different 16 academic departments. This University is a teaching as well as an affiliating university. Around 60 Govt. and Pvt. Colleges situated in different districts like Bhiwani, Jind, Hissar, Fatheabad & Sirsa are affiliated with the University.

Chaudhary Devi Lal University (CDLU) at Sirsa is one of the universities in the state of Haryana. It has been constituted by the Government of Haryana in 2003 by an Act of the Legislative Assembly. The University has been named in the honor of the former Deputy Prime Minister of India, late Chaudhary Devi Lal. The University has great potential for developing into a centre of academic excellence to cater the students belonging to Haryana and other states of the country.History
Chaudhary Devi Lal University was founded and inaugurated in 2003. It has been named after Jan Nayak (late) Chaudhary Devi Lal, the former Deputy Prime Minister of India. With the support of dedicated professionals, the university has given skilled manpower to the nation in diverse domains.

Facilities
The university reveals obvious signs of growth and development. Separate girls and boys students, Library, Laboratories and Workshops with ample infrastructure are the common facilities at the university. A placement cell has also been organized.

Matter pertains to cancellation of admission of the petitioners in M.Phil. Course. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the matter is squarely covered by ratio of the judgment of this Court in Vipin Kundu and others v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University and others, CWP No.6057 of 2007 decided on 8.5.2007.

In view of consensus arrived at between the parties, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as in CWP No.6057 of 2007, referred to above.

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the appointment of Raj Kumar Siwach, respondent No.4 on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Public Administration of the respondent-University, on the ground that he has not applied for the said post. In pursuance of the advertisement No.E-1/1/2004 dated
19.5.2004, Annexure P-1, the applications were invited for direct recruitment to the posts of Professors/Readers/Lecturers in different departments of the University, including one post of Lecturer in Public
Administration. The petitioner was the applicant for the post of Lecturer in the department of Public Administration, whereas respondent No.4 was the
candidate for the post of Reader in the aforesaid Department. The respondent-University considered the candidature of respondent No.4 and 35 other candidates, in the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 18.7.2004. The Selection Committee recommended the name of respondent No.4 for appointment to the post of Lecturer. The name of respondent No.4 was at No.1.

in the merit of seniority list, whereas name of Satyawan was at No.2 and name of Sultan Singh was at No.3. The sole ground to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 is that respondent No.4 has not applied for the post of Lecturer, but still he has been appointed on the post of Lecturer and, therefore, his appointment, without any application for the said post, is illegal.

In reply, it has been pointed out that the candidatures of the candidates for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers were considered by the same Selection Committee. Such Selection Committee while considering the candidature of respondent No.4 against the post of Reader, found him suitable for the post of Lecturer during the course of proceedings and sought his consent for the post of Lecturer. On the basis of
the consent being sent by respondent No.4, he was appointed on the post of Lecturer. Respondent No.4 was earlier working as Lecturer in a College for the last about 10 years and, therefore, he has sought appointment as Reader.

But since he was found suitable for the post of Lecturer by the respondent-

University, he opted for such post as it was decided to grant him all the benefits of his previous service.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has pointed out that after one year, the lien of respondent No.4 on the post of Lecturer in the College, where he was working, stands terminated.

The present writ petition has been filed on 26.5.2006, i.e., after more than 1- 1/2 years of joining of the respondent No.4 on the post of Lecturer.

Therefore, the writ petition suffers from delay and latches as well. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also argued that the petitioner was considered for the post of Lecturer by the Selection Committee and his
name was not amongst the candidates who were recommended for appointment, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 at this stage.

In pursuance of the recommendation of the Selection
Committee, the respondent No.4 joined on 17.9.2004. In fact, communications dated 30.6.2005 and 8.9.2005, Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively, attached with the present writ petition, show that the petitioner made representations to the Vice Chancellor of the University on 30.6.2005 and 8.9.2005 in respect of appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Lecturer. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner was aware of the selection of
respondent No.4 on the post of Lecturer, but still he invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on 26.5.2006. Thus, we are of the opinion that the writ petition suffers from delay and latches, morso, when the lien of respondent No.4 on his previous post stands terminated.

There is another reason not to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this Court at the instance of the petitioner. The Selection Committee selected three candidates for the post of Lecturer in Public Administration Department of the University. Petitioner was not one of the recommendees.

Even if the appointment of respondent No.4 is set-aside, the petitioner cannot be granted any substantive relief.

In view thereof, we do not any ground to interfere in the
selection of respondent No.4 for the post of Lecturer, at this stage, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.
The writ petition stands dismissed.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate on the asking of the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.

The petitioner by way of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 3.5.2007 (Annexure P-6) whereby his admission to the M.Phil course with respondent No.1-University Centre for Distance Learning for the session 2006-07 pursuing Dissertation with Guide/Professor of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has been ordered to be cancelled. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the session in the course of M.Phil for the session 2006-07.

During the course of hearing, it has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the parties that a similar matter in the case of Vipin Kundu and others v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University and others (CWP No.6057 of 2007) decided on 8.5.2007 (Annexure P8) has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court.

In the circumstances, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the said order.

Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of fee prescribed for urgent applications.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Seerish Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate on the asking of the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.

This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.4.2007 (Annexure-P.4) in respect of petitioner No.1 and dated 12.4.2007 (Annexure-P.5) in respect of petitioner No.2. In pursuance of the aforesaid two orders the admission of the petitioners to the M.Phil.course with respondent No.1-University, Centre for Distance Learning for the session 2006-07 pursuing Dissertation with Guides/Professor of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has been cancelled. The petitioners pray for directing the respondents to allow them to complete the session in the course of M.Phil for the session 2006-07. Further prayer has been made to issue roll numbers to the petitioners for the M.Phil. (Computer Science) examination which is commencing from 20.6.2007.

During the course of hearing, it has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the parties that a similar matter in the case of Vipin Kundu and others v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University and others (CWP No.6057 of 2007) decided on 8.5.2007 (Annexure-P.7) has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court.

The present petition is also disposed of in terms of the said order.

Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of fee prescribed for urgent applications.

S.S. Saron, J. (Oral):
The petitioner by way of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 12.4.2007 (Annexure-P.4) whereby her admission to the M.Phil. course with respondent No.1-University, Centre for Distance Learning for the session 2006-07 pursuing Dissertation with Guides/Professor of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has been ordered to be cancelled. A
further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to allow the
petitioner to complete the session in the course of M.Phil for the session
2006-07.

During the course of hearing, it has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the parties that a similar matter in the case of Vipin Kundu and others v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University and others (CWP No.6057 of 2007) decided on 8.5.2007 (Annexure-P.5) has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court.

In the circumstances, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the said order.

Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of fee prescribed for urgent applications.

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
At the outset, Mr. B.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University states that a regular selection process has already been initiated by the respondents and it has also been decided by the University that the services of the petitioners shall not be dispensed with till the completion of the present academic session i.e. 2006-2007 or till the new selectees join, whichever is earlier. Mr. Gupta further states that the University has also decided that no fresh contract/ guest employee shall be taken in place of the present petitioners. The aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents fully satisfies Mr.R.K. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is disposed of as
having been rendered infructuous.

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
At the outset, Mr. B.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University states that a regular selection process has already been initiated by the respondents and it has also been decided by the University that the services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with till the completion of the present academic session i.e. 2006-2007 or till the new selectees join, whichever is earlier. Mr. Gupta further states that the University has also decided that no fresh contract/ guest employee shall be taken in place of the present petitioner. The aforesaid statement made by
the learned counsel for the respondents fully satisfies Mr.R.K.

Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is disposed of as
having been rendered infructuous.

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
At the outset, Mr. B.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University states that a regular selection process has already been initiated by the respondents and it has also been decided by the University that the services of the petitioners shall not be dispensed with till the completion of the present academic session i.e. 2006-2007 or till the new selectees join, whichever is earlier. Mr. Gupta further states that the University has also decided that no fresh contract/ guest employee shall be taken in place of the present petitioners. The aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents fully satisfies Mr.R.K.

Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
At the outset, Mr. B.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University states that a regular selection process has already been initiated by the respondents and it has also been decided by the University that the services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with till the completion of the present academic session i.e. 2006-2007 or till the new selectees join, whichever is earlier. Mr. Gupta further states that the University has also decided that no fresh contract/ guest employee shall be taken in place of the present petitioner. The aforesaid statement made by
the learned counsel for the respondents fully satisfies Mr.R.K.

Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is disposed of as
having been rendered infructuous.

(VINEY MITTAL)
JUDGE

(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE

RATIKA AND ANR Versus DEVI LAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR CWP 13307 of 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: December 21, 2006

Ratika and another …..Petitioners
Vs.
Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another …..Respondents

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents informs the Court that petitioner No.2-Manju Bala has already resigned, and therefore, the writ petition qua her has been rendered infructuous.

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition qua petitioner No.2, is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

Mr. B.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
University further states that a regular selection process has already been initiated by the respondents and it has also been decided by the University that the services of petitioner No.1 shall not be dispensed with till the completion of the present academic session i.e. 2006-2007 or till the new selectees join, whichever is earlier. Mr. Gupta further states that the University has also decided that no fresh contract/ guest employee shall be
taken in place of the present petitioner No.1. The aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents fully satisfies Mr.R.K. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition qua petitioner No.1 is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents informs the Court that petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 have already resigned, and therefore, the writ petition qua the aforesaid persons has been rendered infructuous.

In view of the aforesaid statement, the writ petition on behalf of petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 is dismissed as having been rendered
infructuous.

Mr. B.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
University further states that a regular selection process has already been initiated by the respondents and it has also been decided by the University that the services of petitioners No.2, 5 and 6 shall not be dispensed with till the completion of the present academic session i.e. 2006-2007 or till the new selectees join, whichever is earlier. Mr. Gupta further states that the University ahs also decided that no fresh contract/ guest employee shall be taken in place of the present petitioners No.2, 5 and 6. The aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents fully satisfies Mr.R.K. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition qua petitioners No.2, 5 and 6 is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

PRESENT:
Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent

M.M.KUMAR,J.
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution for quashing orders dated 14.3.2005 (Annexure P-13) whereby her services on contractual basis were terminated. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents not to terminate her services till a regular appointment is made on the post.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners we are of
the considered view that no such directions could be issued for
regularization of the services of the petitioner in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as a detailed judgment of this Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2006 (2) PLR 474.

Present:
Mr.N.D. Achint, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Shireesh Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the readvertisement of the post in question, this petition has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed as such. Ordered accordingly.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court accepting the appeal of the University and dismissing an application seeking ad interim injunction against dispensation of services of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Food Science and Technology for a period of one year till regular appointments are made, at a consolidated emoluments of Rs.13,500/- per month vide letter of appointment dated 7.9.2004. It was stipulated therein that her services can be terminated at any time without any notice and that she would cease to be in position after expiry of one year or till such date regular appointments as Lecturer are made by the University, whichever is earlier.

It is the claim of the petitioner that on 3.11.2007, the Registrar, University has issued an officer order in terms of the orders of the ViceChancellor to permit the petitioner to continue as such, till the appointment of Readers in the Department of Food Science and Technology. However, subsequently the petitioner was not engaged by the University, which lead to filing of the suit, wherein the plaintiff claims that she is entitled to continue on contract basis till such time regular appointments against the posts of Reader were not made.

Learned trial Court granted ad interim injunction, but the same has been set aside by the learned first Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in terms of order Annexure P-4, the services of the petitioner can be
dispensed with only on appointment of regular Readers. Since, the regular Readers have not been appointed so far, therefore, she has right to continue on contract basis.

The communication Annexure P-4 has to be read in terms of the initial appointment i.e. Annexure P-1, contemplating termination of appointment at any time without giving any notice. The communication Annexure P-4 will not confer any right on the petitioner to continue till regular appointment is made. It is for the University to consider whether services of the petitioner are required to be engaged on contract basis and for such time, which it may consider appropriate. However, the plaintiff has no right to claim by virtue of interim order to continue on contract basis.

Even otherwise, the interim order granted to the plaintiff is in fact amounts to decree of the suit i.e. main relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit as well. Therefore, by virtue of the interim order, her suit cannot be decreed and thereby defeat the rights of the defendant without trial.

In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty, if so advised, to move in accordance with law for violation of the statement made on behalf of the respondents, while disposing of CWP No. 13069 of 2005, decided on 21.12.2006, titled as Nitranjan and others versus Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral).
The petitioner, who is working as Director Youth Welfare-cum-Professor in Physical Education on contract basis in the respondent-University, has filed the instant petition for quashing order dated 31.7.2009 (Annexure P-6), whereby his claim for medical reimbursement has been rejected.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy arising out of the contract agreement and appointment order issued by the
respondent-University before the Civil Court or any other appropriate Authority.

WHEREAS the appeal of Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, Haryana dated 20-06-2009 is against the Order No. F.NRC-NCTE-F-7-3-HR-877-2009-4193 dated 10- 06-09 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing conditional recognition for conducting M.P.Ed course on the grounds the list of selected faculty by duly constituted selection committee is not submitted.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Chaudhary Devi Lal University (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22-06-2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Prof. Shamsher Singh, Professor, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-07-09. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the teaching faculty selected by the duly constituted selection committee was appointed by the university well in time and the details of the faculty members were displayed in the website. However, the representative admitted that they could not submit the documents to the NRC within the prescribed time limit due to frequent change of the Chairperson with Department and file was misplaced.

AND WHEREAS the institution admitted that the list could not be submitted to the NRC till date. The reason for non submission was delay in the university in the sanction of posts and recruitment of faculty. Therefore, a considerable time was taken by the university and now the list is available, which is submitted for consideration of the Council. The Council was, therefore, of the view that the refusal of recognition to the institution by NRC was premature as it would have waited for the reply of the institute, in view of the fact that it was a University Department.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after hearing oral arguments advanced during hearing and keeping in view the difficulties of the institution in getting the staff sanctioned and its recruitment, The Council reached the conclusion that there enough ground to accept the appeal and that it should be accepted Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and NRCs order dated 10-6-09 was set aside with direction to the NRC to grant recognition to the institution immediately.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for seeking direction to the respondents to grant him admission in the C.P.Ed. for the Session 2010-11 against the seat reserved for Backward Class Category. As per the petitioner, he has wrongly been denied dmission on the ground that he did not submit an affidavit in support of Backward Class Certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Sirsa. The petitioner would urge that this is contrary to the instructions dated 28.4.2010 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Haryana Government. As per these instructions, the Government has decided that no Government department or organization would require the applicants to file affidavit.

Notice of motion was issued. Reply is filed. Counsel appearing for the University points out that the condition prescribed in the prospectus was that a person wishes to get admission in the category of Backward Class, has to file the certificate that he does not belong to creamy layer. The certificate required by the prospectus, was not in support of his being a Backward Class candidate. It was to certify that the candidate does not fall in the creamy layer. Since this condition was uniformally applied to all the candidates, having been so provided in the prospectus, the petitioner could not have ignored the same. All the four seats have been filled up by granting admission to the candidates, who have submitted all their requisite documents. Since the condition in the prospectus was not followed, no case for interference is, thus, made out. Dismissed.